How To Influence People And Argue Well
| Business : Career Techniques You can influence people in many ways. One of them is by being a good talker - a good thinker, and a good arguer. Therefore in this article I am going to concentrate on giving a good argument. This is essential in your everyday life - you can spot when people are saying false things, and win people over to your viewpoints with your clear arguments. At work if you get a good reputation for a good, clear, logical thinker then the benefits can include rapid promotion, people seeking your opinion on a frequent basis, and many more besides. The key to being a good arguer is to think through points that people make logically. They may often disguise things with spin and fill them with rhetoric. When people are arguing something with you, or you hear an argument on the radio or tv, always try and reduce it to the key points that are made, that is, reduce it to the: premises conclusion By analysing these, you will find that worryingly often the argument that is given is very poor. Of course, there are better and worse arguments, but some people are notorious for getting away with terrible arguments - usually those on television in the media, sometimes in newspapers, and of course politicians - who have other tricks up their sleeves as well. Of course most arguments are not those that are of a deductive nature: have a strict conclusion from set premisses. An example of an argument like this is: Socrates is a man All men are mortal Socrates is mortal Given the premisses, the conclusion is definitely true - it's a valid argument. But what about most arguments that you will here? These may be persuasive, or they may not be so. The key is to think about them and investigate further. Always listen to what is said - only by hearing carefully and finding out what the argument is will you be able to argue back; when probed and questioned you will often find that, for all they say and for all their soundbytes, they're not really sure what their argument is (politicians again take your bow here!) Let's look at the sort of argument that may be used that is not necessarily a good one: Murder is always wrong Abortion is murder Therefore abortion is always wrong Now this argument looks initially implausible - indeed it is valid, in that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. So, with an argument, how do you analyse it? Well, you should look at the premisses and conclusion together in general. Do you believe all parts? Well, many people do believe the argument above. But if you don't, how would you go about arguing against it? The best way is to question the premisses - look at the first one. Is murder always wrong? Well, it partly depends on your definition of murder - is this killing or stronger? In a war, you kill opposition troops - is this always wrong? Was the dropping of the atom bomb wrong? Is murdering one man to save 10000 wrong? Here it is not so clear cut. With regard to the second premise, is abortion murder? Again, here there is considerable scope for argument and debate - often centring on whether the foetus is human or conscious and various other things beside. As well as the premisses, you must also look at the ramifications of the argument - for instance, in the above argument, since it claims that murder is always wrong, then presumably it is the dying involved in death that is the evil. But in many cases if no abortion is performed the mother may die - which here is the greater evil? You should also question assumptions that are made by those who present arguments, and those who try to reply to them. Free your mind of assumptions and you may find new fresh viewpoints and angles upon which to base an argument or attack an existing one. So, you can now see how to attack an argument: put it into premises and conclusion form and see if it all follows and whether the premises can be attacked. You can also see whether the conclusion follows from the premisses - in the above cases it does, but often it does not - yet this goes unnoticed. For instance, consider this argument: All humans die No known human has reached the age of 130 Therefore, if I meet someone who claims to be 130, he must either be lying or not human, or both. This is not a valid argument - the premisses could be true and the conclusion false. Another argument form that is often used but is also false is known as the fallacy of affirming the consequent: If it is raining, then Jones will take his umbrella Jones has his umbrella, therefore it is raining This is an important thing to notice, as many people use this argument often when they use 'if, then' arguments, which are of course important ones for thinking through the consequences of actions. Above, there may be other reasons why Jones has his umbrella - perhaps he is moving house and his taking his umbrella with him. This should be contrasted with what *is* a valid argument, which is denying the antecedent: If it is raining, Jones always takes his umbrella Jones does not have his umbrella, therefore it is not raining. What other tactics to people use to push a bad argument, or unfairly make their point? One tactic is the 'political answer' - this is where the person responding to the question does not answer the question directly, but rather (usually subtlely) moves to a different issue, or provides a cursory answer to the question then moves on. Often, they will give a poor fallacious answer to the question, then use this to justify another point of theirs. Another common argument is to set up what's called a 'straw man' - if you are having a debate, or disagree with another's viewpoint, then you simply create a straw man - that is, you put into the mouth of another an argument that they do not actually hold, in order to defeat theirs and gain credibility for yours. This is something that politicians have done forever and a day. However, they are surprisingly effective. An example of this is when William Hague, an ex-leader of the Conservative party in the UK, gave a speech in which he referred to Britain becoming a foreign land. Wishing to dismiss him and gain credibility for their own viewpoints, other political parties seized on this comment and said that Hague's speech was a blatant piece of intolerant xenophobia. Now, from the speech itself and without great assumptions, this leap is simply unfounded. However, the straw man was very effective. Many people indulge in the 'only hear and believe what I want to' phenomenon. Question what you read in the press. If you write something down in black and white print, no matter how bizarre or stupid, people will believe it. But try and question assumptions and arguments that are made around you. Often people present good arguments, but there are other explanations possible - perhaps even more credible ones. These may change over time. For instance, if I argue: 'The world resembles a watch in that is is accurate and beautiful and well tuned. Watches have creators - intelligent ones. Therefore the world, so much greater than a watch, also has a creator - a much more intelligent one - God'. This argument can seem plausible, but there are other alternatives - why not a team of Gods, for instance? So, you have learnt about arguments. When giving your own arguments, always try to be clear and precise and ensure that your conclusion follows from your premisses, which are themselves valid. Soon you will be destroying others arguments with ease, and be able to argue clearly and logically in all that you do. Great things may result!
 Questions about interview:
|
|
Tweet this!
